A compactness result for an equation on the annulus.

HAL Id: hal-02275938

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02275938

Preprint submitted on 2 Sep 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

A compactness result for an equation on the annulus.

Samy Skander Bahoura

To cite this version:

Samy Skander Bahoura. A compactness result for an equation on the annulus.. 2019. �hal-02275938�

A COMPACTNESS RESULT FOR AN EQUATION ON THE ANNULUS.

SAMY SKANDER BAHOURA

ABSTRACT. We give a blow-up behavior for the solutions of an elliptic equation with boundary singularity, under some conditions. We also derive a compactness creterion for this elliptic equation with boundary singu- larity.

Mathematics Subject Classification: 35J60 35B45 35B50

Keywords: blow-up, boundary, elliptic equation, a priori estimate, Lipschitz condition, boundary singularity, annu- lus.

1. I

M

R

Let us consider the following operator:

L

:= ∆ + ǫ · ǫ(x) < (x − x

)|∇u

>

We consider the following equation:

(P

)

( −∆u − ǫ · ǫ(x) < x − x

|∇u > = |x − x

|

V e

in Ω ⊂ R

,

u = 0 in ∂Ω.

Here, we assume that:

We denote by C(1) and C(1/2) the unit circle and the circle of radius 1/2 respectively.

Ω = A(0, 1/2, 1) is an annulus of center 0 and radii 1/2, 1, x

∈ C(1/2) and,

0 < ǫ → 0, α ∈ (0, 1/2), u ∈ W

(Ω), |x − x

|

e

∈ L

(Ω), 0 ≤ V ≤ b.

We assume that:

Ω is an annulus of exterior circle the unit circle and interior circle the circle of radius 1/2.

ǫ ≡ 1 in a neighborhood of the unit circle C(1) and ǫ ≡ −1 in a neighborhood of the circle of radius 1/2.

Important Remark: To give an example of a blow-up sequence of the previous type on the boundary. We use the counter-exemple of Brezis and Merle, this counterexample works if we replace the unit ball centered at y

= (1, 0) by the annulus centered at y

= (1, 0). After se use an inversion to have the blow-up point on the interior circle of the annulus. (do not forget to add the term ǫ · ǫ(x) < x − x

|∇u

> in the equation).

1

Here we present the result of Brezis-Merle in the regular case.

When ǫ = 0 the previous equation was studied by many authors with or without the boundary condition, also for Riemann surfaces see [1-20] where one can find some existence and compactness results. Also we have a nice formulation in the sens of the distributions of this Problem in [7].

Among other results, we can see in [6] the following important Theorem,

Theorem A (Brezis-Merle [6]) If (u

)

and (V

)

are two sequences of functions relative to the problem (P

) with ǫ = 0 and,

0 < a ≤ V

≤ b < +∞

then it holds,

sup

K

u

≤ c, with c depending on a, b, K and Ω.

We can find in [6] an interior estimate if we assume a = 0 but we need an assumption on the integral of e

, namely:

Theorem B(Brezis-Merle [6]).For (u

)

and (V

)

two sequences of functions relative to the problem (P

) with,

0 ≤ V

≤ b < +∞ and Z

Ω

e

dy ≤ C, then it holds;

sup

K

u

≤ c, with c depending on b, C, K and Ω.

The condition R

Ω

e

dy ≤ C is a necessary condition in the Problem (P

) as showed by the following counterexample for ǫ = 0:

Theorem C (Brezis-Merle [6]).There are two sequences (u

)

and (V

)

of the problem (P

) with;

0 ≤ V

≤ b < +∞, Z

Ω

e

dy ≤ C, such that,

sup

Ω

u

→ +∞.

To obtain the two first previous results (Theorems A and B) Brezis and Merle used an inequality (Theorem 1 of [6]) obtained by an approximation argument and they used Fatou’s lemma and applied the maximum principle in W

(Ω) which arises from Kato’s inequality. Also this weak form of the maximum principle is used to prove the local uniform boundedness result by comparing a certain function and the Newtonian potential. We refer to [5] for a topic about the weak form of the maximum principle.

Note that for the problem (P

), by using the Pohozaev identity, we can prove that R

Ω

e

is uniformly bounded when 0 < a ≤ V

≤ b < +∞ and ||∇V

||

≤ A and Ω starshaped, when a = 0 and ∇ log V

is uniformly bounded, we can bound uniformly R

Ω

V

e

. In [17] Ma-Wei have proved that those results stay true for all open sets not necessarily starshaped in the case a > 0.

2

In [8] Chen-Li have proved that if a = 0 and R

Ω

e

is uniformly bounded and ∇ log V

is uniformly bounded then (u

)

is bounded near the boundary and we have directly the compactness result for the prob- lem (P

). Ma-Wei in [17] extend this result in the case where a > 0.

When ǫ = 0 and if we assume V more regular we can have another type of estimates called sup + inf type inequalities. It was proved by Shafrir see [19] that, if (u

)

, (V

)

are two sequences of functions solutions of the Problem (P

) without assumption on the boundary and 0 < a ≤ V

≤ b < +∞ then it holds:

C a b

sup

K

u

+ inf

Ω

u

≤ c = c(a, b, K, Ω).

We can see in [9] an explicit value of C a b

= r a

b . In his proof, Shafrir has used the blow-up function, the Stokes formula and an isoperimetric inequality see [2]. For Chen-Lin, they have used the blow-up analysis combined with some geometric type inequality for the integral curvature see [9].

Now, if we suppose (V

)

uniformly Lipschitzian with A its Lipschitz constant then C(a/b) = 1 and c = c(a, b, A, K, Ω) see Brezis-Li-Shafrir [4]. This result was extended for H ¨olderian sequences (V

)

by Chen-Lin see [9]. Also have in [15], an extension of the Brezis-Li-Shafrir result to compact Riemannian surfaces without boundary. One can see in [16] explicit form, (8πm, m ∈ N

exactly), for the numbers in front of the Dirac masses when the solutions blow-up. Here the notion of isolated blow-up point is used.

Also one can see in [10] refined estimates near the isolated blow-up points and the bubbling behavior of the blow-up sequences.

Here we give the behavior of the blow-up points on the boundary and a proof of a compactness result with Lipschitz condition. Note that our problem is an extension of the Brezis-Merle Problem.

The Brezis-Merle Problem (see [6]) is:

Problem. Suppose that V

→ V in C

( ¯ Ω) with 0 ≤ V

. Also, we consider a sequence of solutions (u

) of (P

) relative to (V

) such that,

Z

Ω

e

dx ≤ C, is it possible to have:

||u

||

≤ C = C(b, C, V, Ω)?

Here we give blow-up analysis on the boundary when V (similar to the prescribed curvature when ǫ = 0) are nonegative and bounded, and on the other hand, if we add the assumption that these functions (similar to the prescribed cruvature) are uniformly Lipschitzian, we have a compactness of the solutions of the problem (P

) for ǫ small enough. (In particular we can take a sequence of ǫ

tending to 0):

For the behavior of the blow-up points on the boundary, the following condition is sufficient, 0 ≤ V

≤ b,

The condition V

→ V in C

( ¯ Ω) is not necessary. But for the compactness of the solutions we add the following condition:

||∇V

||

≤ A

→ 0.

3

Our main results are:

Theorem 1.1. Assume that α ∈ (0, 1/2) and max

u

→ +∞, where (u

) are solutions of the probleme (P

) with:

0 ≤ V

≤ b, and Z

Ω

|x − x

|

e

dx ≤ C,

then, after passing to a subsequence, there is a finction u, there is a number N ∈ N and N points x

, . . . , x

∈ ∂Ω, such that: x

= x

and x

, . . . , x

∈ ∂Ω − {x

} and,

∂

u

→ ∂

u +

N

X

j=1

α

δ

, α

≥ 4π(1 − α) and α

≥ 4π, in the sens of measures on ∂Ω.

u

→ u in C

( ¯ Ω − {x

, . . . , x

}), or, x

, . . . , x

∈ ∂Ω − {x

} and,

∂

u

→ ∂

u +

N

X

j=1

α

δ

, α

≥ 4π and α

≥ 4π, in the sens of measures on ∂Ω.

u

→ u in C

( ¯ Ω − {x

, . . . , x

}),

Theorem 1.2. Assume that (u

) are solutions of (P

) relative to (V

) with α ∈ (0, 1/2) and the following conditions:

0 ≤ V

≤ b, ||∇V

||

≤ A

→ 0 and Z

Ω

|x − x

|

e

≤ C.

Then we have:

||u

||

≤ c(b, α, ((A)

), C, x

, Ω),

2. P

Proof of theorem 1.1:

First remark that:

( −∆u

= ǫ

(x

∂

u

+ x

∂

u

) + |x − x

|

V

e

∈ L

(Ω) in Ω ⊂ R

,

u

= 0 in ∂Ω.

and,

u

∈ W

(Ω).

By the corollary 1 of Brezis-Merle see [6] we have e

∈ L

(Ω) for all k > 2 and the elliptic estimates of Agmon and the Sobolev embedding see [1] and α ∈ (0, 1/2) imply that:

4

u

∈ W

(Ω) ∩ C

( ¯ Ω).

Also remark that, we have for two positive constants C

= C(q, Ω) and C

= C

(Ω) (see [7]) :

||∇u

||

≤ C

||∆u

||

≤ (C

+ ǫC

||∇u

||

), ∀ i and 1 < q < 2.

Thus, if ǫ > 0 is small enough and by the Holder inequality, we have the following estimate:

||∇u

||

≤ C

, ∀ i and 1 < q < 2.

Step 1: interior estimate

First remark that, if we consider the following equation:

( −∆w

= ǫ

(x

∂

u

+ x

∂

u

) ∈ L

, 1 < q < 2 in Ω ⊂ R

,

w

= 0 in ∂Ω.

If we consider v

the Newtonnian potential of ǫ

(x

∂

u

+ x

∂

u

), we have:

v

∈ C

( ¯ Ω), ∆(w

− v

) = 0.

By the maximum principle w

− v

∈ C

( ¯ Ω) and thus w

∈ C

( ¯ Ω).

Also we have by the elliptic estimates that w

∈ W

⊂ L

, and we can write the equation of the Problem as:

( −∆(u

− w

) = ˜ V

e

in Ω ⊂ R

, u

− w

= 0 in ∂Ω.

with,

0 ≤ V ˜

= V

e

≤ ˜ b, Z

Ω

|x − x

|

e

≤ C. ˜ We apply the Brezis-Merle theorem to u

− w

to have:

u

− w

∈ L

(Ω), and, thus:

u

∈ L

(Ω).

5

Step2: boundary estimate

The boundary contains two coonected components. Set ∂

u

the inner derivative of u

. We consider one of the two components and without loss of generality, by the maximum principle one can assume that

∂

u

≥ 0.

We have:

Z

∂Ω

∂

u

dσ ≤ C.

We have the existence of a nonnegative Radon measure µ such that, Z

∂Ω

∂

u

ϕdσ → µ(ϕ), ∀ ϕ ∈ C

(∂Ω).

Case 1: µ({x

}) ≥ 4π(1 − α).

This means that x

is non-regular point.

We take an x

∈ ∂Ω such that, µ(x

) < 4π. Set B (x

, ǫ) ∩ ∂Ω := I

. We choose a function η

such that,



 

 



 

 



η

≡ 1, on I

, 0 < ǫ < δ/2, η

≡ 0, outside I

,

0 ≤ η

≤ 1,

||∇η

||

≤ C

(Ω, x

)

ǫ .

We take a η ˜

such that,

( −∆˜ η

= 0 in Ω ⊂ R

,

˜

η

= η

in ∂Ω.

Remark: We use the following steps in the construction of η ˜

: We take a cutoff function η

in B(0, 2) or B(x

, 2):

1- We set η

(x) = η

(|x − x

|/ǫ) in the case of the unit disk it is sufficient.

2- Or, in the general case: we use a chart (f, Ω) ˜ with f (0) = x

and we take µ

(x) = η

(f (|x|/ǫ)) to have connected sets I

and we take η

(y) = µ

(f

(y)). Because f, f

are Lipschitz, |f (x) − x

| ≤ k

|x| ≤ 1 for |x| ≤ 1/k

and |f (x) − x

| ≥ k

|x| ≥ 2 for |x| ≥ 2/k

> 1/k

, the support of η is in I

.

6



 

 



 

 



η

≡ 1, on f(I

), 0 < ǫ < δ/2, η

≡ 0, outside f (I

),

0 ≤ η

≤ 1,

||∇η

||

1)ǫ)

≤ C

(Ω, x

)

ǫ .

3- Also, we can take: µ

(x) = η

(|x|/ǫ) and η

(y) = µ

(f

(y)), we extend it by 0 outside f (B

(0)).

We have f (B

(0)) = D

(x

), f (B

(0)) = D

(x

) and f(B

) = D

(x

) with f and f

smooth diffeo- morphism.



 

 



 

 



η

≡ 1, on a the connected set J

= f (I

), 0 < ǫ < δ/2, η

≡ 0, outside J

= f (I

),

0 ≤ η

≤ 1,

||∇η

||

≤ C

(Ω, x

)

ǫ .

And, H

(J

) ≤ C

H

(I

) = C

4ǫ, because f is Lipschitz. Here H

is the Hausdorff measure.

We solve the Dirichlet Problem:

( ∆¯ η

= ∆η

in Ω ⊂ R

,

¯

η

= 0 in ∂Ω.

and finaly we set η ˜

= −¯ η

+ η

. Also, by the maximum principle and the elliptic estimates we have :

||∇˜ η

||

≤ C(||η

||

+ ||∇η

||

+ ||∆η

||

) ≤ C

ǫ

, with C

depends on Ω.

As we said in the beguening, see also [3, 7, 13, 20], we have:

||∇u

||

≤ C

, ∀ i and 1 < q < 2.

We deduce from the last estimate that, (u

) converge weakly in W

(Ω), almost everywhere to a function u ≥ 0 and R

Ω

|x − x

|

e

< +∞ (by Fatou lemma). Also, V

weakly converge to a nonnegative function V in L

. The function u is in W

(Ω) solution of :

( −∆u = |x − x

|

V e

∈ L

(Ω) in Ω ⊂ R

,

u = 0 in ∂Ω.

7

According to the corollary 1 of Brezis-Merle result, see [6], we have e

∈ L

(Ω), k > 1. By the elliptic estimates, we have, because α ∈ (0, 1/2), u ∈ W

(Ω) ∩ C

( ¯ Ω).

We denote by f · g the inner product of any two vectors f and g of R

. We can write,

−∆((u

− u)˜ η

) = |x − x

|

(V

e

− V e

)˜ η

− 2∇(u

− u) · ∇˜ η

+ ǫ

(∇u

· (x − x

))˜ η

. (1) We use the interior esimate of Brezis-Merle, see [6],

Step 1: Estimate of the integral of the first term of the right hand side of (1).

We use the Green formula between η ˜

and u, we obtain, Z

Ω

|x − x

|

V e

η ˜

dx = Z

∂Ω

∂

uη

≤ Cǫ = O(ǫ) (2)

We have,

( −∆u

− ǫ

∇u

· (x − x

) = |x − x

|

V

e

in Ω ⊂ R

,

u = 0 in ∂Ω.

We use the Green formula between u

and η ˜

to have:

Z

Ω

|x − x

|

V

e

η ˜

dx = Z

∂Ω

∂

u

η

dσ − ǫ

Z

Ω

(∇u

· (x − x

))˜ η

=

= Z

∂Ω

∂

u

η

dσ + o(1) → µ(η

) ≤ µ(J

) ≤ 4π − ǫ

, ǫ

> 0 (3) From (2) and (3) we have for all ǫ > 0 there is i

such that, for i ≥ i

,

Z

Ω

||x − x

|

(V

e

− V e

)˜ η

|dx ≤ 4π − ǫ

+ Cǫ (4) Step 2.1: Estimate of integral of the second term of the right hand side of (1).

Let Σ

= {x ∈ Ω, d(x, ∂Ω) = ǫ

} and Ω

= {x ∈ Ω, d(x, ∂Ω) ≥ ǫ

}, ǫ > 0. Then, for ǫ small enough, Σ

is an hypersurface.

The measure of Ω − Ω

is k

ǫ

≤ meas(Ω − Ω

) = µ

(Ω − Ω

) ≤ k

ǫ

. Remark: for the unit ball B ¯ (0, 1), our new manifold is B(0, ¯ 1 − ǫ

).

8

(Proof of this fact; let’s consider d(x, ∂Ω) = d(x, z

), z

∈ ∂Ω, this imply that (d(x, z

))

≤ (d(x, z))

for all z ∈ ∂Ω which it is equivalent to (z − z

) · (2x − z − z

) ≤ 0 for all z ∈ ∂Ω, let’s consider a chart around z

and γ(t) a curve in ∂Ω, we have;

(γ(t) − γ(t

) · (2x − γ(t) − γ(t

)) ≤ 0 if we divide by (t − t

) (with the sign and tend t to t

), we have γ

(t

) · (x − γ(t

)) = 0, this imply that x = z

− sν

where ν

is the outward normal of ∂Ω at z

))

With this fact, we can say that S = {x, d(x, ∂Ω) ≤ ǫ} = {x = z

− sν

, z

∈ ∂Ω, −ǫ ≤ s ≤ ǫ}. It is sufficient to work on ∂Ω. Let’s consider a charts (z, D = B (z, 4ǫ

), γ

) with z ∈ ∂Ω such that ∪

B (z, ǫ

) is cover of ∂Ω . One can extract a finite cover (B(z

, ǫ

)), k = 1, ..., m, by the area formula the measure of S ∩ B(z

, ǫ

) is less than a kǫ (a ǫ-rectangle). For the reverse inequality, it is sufficient to consider one chart around one point of the boundary).

We write, Z

Ω

|∇(u

− u) · ∇˜ η

|dx = Z

Ω_ǫ3

|∇(u

− u) · ∇˜ η

|dx + Z

Ω−Ω_ǫ3

|∇(u

− u) · ∇˜ η

|dx. (5) Step 2.1.1: Estimate of R

Ω−Ω_ǫ3

|∇(u

− u) · ∇˜ η

|dx.

First, we know from the elliptic estimates that ||∇˜ η

||

≤ C

/ǫ

, C

depends on Ω

We know that (|∇u

|)

is bounded in L

, 1 < q < 2, we can extract from this sequence a subsequence which converge weakly to h ∈ L

. But, we know that we have locally the uniform convergence to |∇u| (by the Brezis-Merle’s theorem), then, h = |∇u| a.e. Let q

be the conjugate of q.

We have, ∀f ∈ L

(Ω)

Z

Ω

|∇u

|f dx → Z

Ω

|∇u|f dx If we take f = 1

ǫ3

, we have:

for ǫ > 0 ∃ i

= i

(ǫ) ∈ N , i ≥ i

, Z

Ω−Ω_ǫ3

|∇u

| ≤ Z

Ω−Ω_ǫ3

|∇u| + ǫ

.

Then, for i ≥ i

(ǫ), Z

Ω−Ω_ǫ3

|∇u

| ≤ meas(Ω − Ω

)||∇u||

+ ǫ

= ǫ

(k

||∇u||

+ 1) = O(ǫ

).

Thus, we obtain, Z

Ω−Ω_ǫ3

|∇(u

− u) · ∇˜ η

|dx ≤ ǫC

(2k

||∇u||

+ 1) = O(ǫ) (6)

9

The constant C

does not depend on ǫ but on Ω.

Step 2.1.2: Estimate of R

Ω_ǫ3

|∇(u

− u) · ∇˜ η

|dx.

We know that, Ω

⊂⊂ Ω, and ( because of Brezis-Merle’s interior estimates) u

→ u in C

(Ω

). We have,

||∇(u

− u)||

ǫ3)

≤ ǫ

, for i ≥ i

. We write,

Z

Ω_ǫ3

|∇(u

− u) · ∇˜ η

|dx ≤ ||∇(u

− u)||

ǫ3)

||∇˜ η

||

= C

ǫ = O(ǫ) for i ≥ i

, For ǫ > 0, we have for i ∈ N , i ≥ i

,

Z

Ω

|∇(u

− u) · ∇˜ η

|dx ≤ ǫC

(2k

||∇u||

+ 2) = O(ǫ) (7) From (4) and (7), we have, for ǫ > 0, there is i

such that, i ≥ i

,

Z

Ω

|∆[(u

− u)˜ η

]|dx ≤ 4π − ǫ

+ ǫ2C

(2k

||∇u||

+ 2 + C) = 4π − ǫ

+ O(ǫ) (8) We choose ǫ > 0 small enough to have a good estimate of (1).

Indeed, we have:

( −∆[(u

− u)˜ η

] = g

in Ω ⊂ R

, (u

− u)˜ η

= 0 in ∂Ω.

with ||g

||

≤ 4π − ǫ

/2.

We can use Theorem 1 of [6] to conclude that there are q ≥ q > ˜ 1 such that:

Z

Vǫ(x0)

e

dx ≤ Z

Ω

e

dx ≤ C(ǫ, Ω).

where, V

(x

) is a neighberhood of x

in Ω. Here we have used that in a neighborhood of ¯ x

by the elliptic estimates, 1 − Cǫ ≤ η ˜

≤ 1.

Thus, for each x

∈ ∂Ω − {¯ x

, . . . , x ¯

} there is ǫ

> 0, q

> 1 such that:

10

Z

B(x1,ǫ0)

e

dx ≤ C, ∀ i.

By the elliptic estimate see [14] we have:

||u

||

≤ c

∀ i.

Case 2: µ({x

}) < 4π(1 − α).

This means that x

is a regular point for the measure µ.

Let us consider B

(x

), a ball of center 0 and radius ǫ > 0. As in the previous case, we use the uniform estimate in W

(Ω), (1 ≤ q < 2) and Brezis-Merle’s method, see [6], to have

e

∈ L

(B

(x

)).

with a uniform bound.

Thus, by the H ¨older inequality we have

u

∈ L

(B

(x

)).

If we take µ({x

}) < 4π, by the Brezis-Merle estimate we have e

∈ L

(B

(x

)) with r > 1, but this r may not be large enough to ensure u

∈ L

(B

(x

)), because we have the term |x − x

|

in the equation.

Then, by the elliptic estimates, for α ∈ (0, 1)

u

∈ W

(B

(x

)) ∩ C

(B

(x

)) ∩ C

(Ω − {x

, x

, x

, . . . , x

}), (9) and, for α ∈ (0, 1/2), we have

u

∈ W

(B

(x

)) ∩ C

(B

(x

)) ∩ C

(Ω − {x

, x

, x

, . . . , x

}). (10) We have proved that, there is a finite number of points x ¯

, . . . , x ¯

such that the squence (u

)

is locally uniformly bounded in C

, (θ > 0) on Ω ¯ − {¯ x

, . . . , x ¯

}.

Proof of theorem 1.2:

We have:

u

∈ W

∩ C

( ¯ Ω),

11

Thus,

∂

u

∈ W

∩ C

( ¯ Ω), and,

∂

u

· ∂

u

∈ W

∩ C

( ¯ Ω),

Thus, we can use integration by parts. The Pohozaev identity gives locally around each blow-up : a) When x goes in the neighborhood of the unit circle, the Pohozaev identity gives

Z

∂Ω

(∂

u

)

dx ≤ c

(b, A, C, Ω). (11) Thus we can use the weak convergence in L

(∂Ω) to have a subsequence ∂

u

, such that:

Z

∂Ω

∂

u

ϕdx → Z

∂Ω

∂

uϕdx, ∀ ϕ ∈ L

(∂Ω), Thus, α

= 0, j = 1, . . . , N and (u

) is uniformly bounded.

b) When x goes in the neighborhood of x

or y

∈ C(1/2), and the circle of radius 1/2, we use again the Pohozaev identity, by multplying by < x − x

|∇u

>. Here we use ∇V

→ 0 (becasue we do not multiply by < x|∇u

> but by < x − x

|∇u

>) and the radius ǫ of the neighborhood, ǫ → 0 in the Pohozaev identity.

Indeed, we have,

−∆u

− ǫ · ǫ(x) < x − x

|∇u

>= |x − x

|

V e

(12) Let Ω

be a neighborhood of C(1) or C(1/2); first, we have ǫ ≡ 1 in a neighborhood of C(1), we multiply by < x − x

|∇u

> the previous equation and we integrate by parts, we obtain around the blow-up y

, and, also, we consider blow-up from C(1/2), in the neighborhood of C(1/2), ǫ ≡ −1, we multiply the equation of u

, (12), by < x − x

|∇u

> and we integrate by parts,

Thus, Z

−∆u

(< x − x

|∇u

>) − Z

ǫ · ǫ(x)(< x − x

|∇u

>)

= Z

|x − x

|

V

(x) < x − x

|∇(e

) >

We have:

12

Z

Ω¹_ǫ

∆u

(< x − x

|∇u

>) = Z

∂⁺Ω¹_ǫ

< x − x

|∇u

>< ν |∇u

> − < x − x

|ν >

2 |∇u

|

+

+ Z

∂Ω

1

2 < x − x

|ν > (∂

u

)

dσ, and,

− Z

|x − x

|

V

(x) < x − x

|∇(e

) >= 2(1 − α) Z

|x − x

|

V

(x)e

+

+ Z

|x − x

|

< x − x

|∇V

> e

− Z

∂Ω¹_ǫ

|x − x

|

V

(x) < x − x

|ν > e

. We have:

Z

C(1)∩Bǫ(y0)

1

2 (||x||

− < x

|x >)(∂

u

)

dσ + Z

C(1)∩Bǫ(y0)

(||x||

− < x

|x >)|x − x

|

V

+

+ Z

Ω¹_ǫ

(< x − x

|∇u

>)

dx = O(ǫ) + O(1),

but, ||x

|| = 1/2 and ||x|| = 1, thus ||x||

− < x

|x >≥ 1/2, and thus:

Z

C(1)

(∂

u

)

≤ C

Now, we consider blow-up from C(1/2), in the neighborhood of C(1/2), ǫ ≡ −1, we multiply the equation of u

, (12), by < x − x

|∇u

> and we integrate by parts, we obtain (here ν = −2x on C(1/2)):

2(1 − α) Z

Ω¹_ǫ

|x − x

|

V

e

+ Z

C(1/2)∩Bǫ(y0)

−(−||x||

+ < x

|x >)(∂

u

)

dσ+

+ Z

C(1/2)∩Bǫ(y0)

−2(−||x||

+ < x

|x >)|x − x

|

V

+ Z

Ω¹_ǫ

(< x − x

|∇u

>)

dx =

= Z

Ω¹_ǫ

< x − x

|∇V

> |x − x

|

e

+ O(ǫ).

The previous left hand side is non-negative because ||x

|| = 1/2 and ||x|| = 1/2 and | < x

|x > | ≤

||x

|| × ||x|| = ||x||

.

13

We tend i → +∞ and then ǫ → 0, ∇V

→ 0, to obtain:

lim

lim

i→+∞

Z

Ω¹_ǫ

|x − x

|

V

e

= 0, however:

Z

Ω¹_ǫ

|x − x

|

V

e

dx = Z

∂Ω¹_ǫ

∂

u

dσ + O(ǫ) + o(1) → α

> 0, it is a contradiction.

R

[1] T. Aubin. Some Nonlinear Problems in Riemannian Geometry. Springer-Verlag 1998 [2] C. Bandle. Isoperimetric Inequalities and Applications. Pitman, 1980.

[3] L. Boccardo, T. Gallouet. Nonlinear elliptic and parabolic equations involving measure data. J. Funct. Anal. 87 no 1, (1989), 149-169.

[4] H. Brezis, YY. Li and I. Shafrir. A sup+inf inequality for some nonlinear elliptic equations involving exponential nonlineari- ties. J.Funct.Anal.115 (1993) 344-358.

[5] Brezis. H, Marcus. M, Ponce. A. C. Nonlinear elliptic equations with measures revisited. Mathematical aspects of nonlinear dispersive equations, 55-109, Ann. of Math. Stud., 163, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2007.

[6] H. Brezis, F. Merle. Uniform estimates and Blow-up behavior for solutions of−∆u=V(x)e^uin two dimension. Commun.

in Partial Differential Equations, 16 (8 and 9), 1223-1253(1991).Comm.Part.Diff. Equations. 1991.

[7] H. Brezis, W. A. Strauss. Semi-linear second-order elliptic equations in L1. J. Math. Soc. Japan 25 (1973), 565-590.

[8] W. Chen, C. Li. A priori estimates for solutions to nonlinear elliptic equations. Arch. Rational. Mech. Anal. 122 (1993) 145-157.

[9] C-C. Chen, C-S. Lin. A sharp sup+inf inequality for a nonlinear elliptic equation inR². Commun. Anal. Geom. 6, No.1, 1-19 (1998).

[10] C-C.Chen, C-S. Lin. Sharp estimates for solutions of multi-bubbles in compact Riemann surfaces. Comm. Pure Appl. Math.

55 (2002), no. 6, 728-771.

[11] Chang, Sun-Yung A, Gursky, Matthew J, Yang, Paul C. Scalar curvature equation on2- and3-spheres. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 1 (1993), no. 2, 205-229.

[12] D.G. De Figueiredo, P.L. Lions, R.D. Nussbaum, A priori Estimates and Existence of Positive Solutions of Semilinear Elliptic Equations, J. Math. Pures et Appl., vol 61, 1982, pp.41-63.

[13] Ding.W, Jost. J, Li. J, Wang. G. The differential equation∆u= 8π−8πhe^uon a compact Riemann surface. Asian J. Math.

1 (1997), no. 2, 230-248.

[14] D. Gilbarg, N. S, Trudinger. Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second order, Berlin Springer-Verlag.

[15] YY. Li. Harnack Type Inequality: the method of moving planes. Commun. Math. Phys. 200,421-444 (1999).

[16] YY. Li, I. Shafrir. Blow-up analysis for solutions of−∆u=V e^uin dimension two. Indiana. Math. J. Vol 3, no 4. (1994).

1255-1270.

[17] L. Ma, J-C. Wei. Convergence for a Liouville equation. Comment. Math. Helv. 76 (2001) 506-514.

[18] Nagasaki, K, Suzuki,T. Asymptotic analysis for two-dimensional elliptic eigenvalue problems with exponentially dominated nonlinearities. Asymptotic Anal. 3 (1990), no. 2, 173-188.

[19] I. Shafrir. A sup+inf inequality for the equation−∆u=V e^u. C. R. Acad.Sci. Paris S´er. I Math. 315 (1992), no. 2, 159-164.

[20] Tarantello, G. Multiple condensate solutions for the Chern-Simons-Higgs theory. J. Math. Phys. 37 (1996), no. 8, 3769-3796.

DEPARTEMENT DEMATHEMATIQUES, UNIVERSITEPIERRE ETMARIECURIE, 2PLACEJUSSIEU, 75005, PARIS, FRANCE. E-mail address:samybahoura@yahoo.fr, samybahoura@gmail.com

14